Special Branch head Senior Superintendent Prem Narine came under renewed pressure Monday as defence attorney Siand Dhurjon intensified his cross-examination over the police operation surrounding Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, probing how Mohamed was located, the timing of surveillance and what police knew before his arrest.
The questioning took place as Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman made clear that the extradition hearing involving Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, would not be rushed at the expense of legitimate questions.
Latchman intervened after prosecutors Terrence Williams K.C and Herbert McKenzie sought to establish when Dhurjon expected to conclude his questioning of Narine. Dhurjon said he expected to finish by Tuesday. He however cautioned that would be dependent on objections, legal arguments and other issues could affect that timeline.
The Magistrate said the court would not suppress valid questions simply to bring the hearing to an earlier end, stressing that the evidence being tested could have consequences “for generations to come.”
Monday’s questioning centred heavily on how police located Mohamed shortly before his October 31, 2025 arrest.
How did police find Mohamed?
Narine testified that after obtaining warrants, several locations were checked because Mohamed was not at the places police initially expected him to be.
Dhurjon pressed him on how he came to know that Mohamed was on Smyth Street and suggested that a Special Branch vehicle had followed Mohamed after he left his home.
Narine said he recalled having someone stationed at Mohamed’s residence after receiving information about where Mohamed was expected to be, but indicated that the operation had subsequently been stood down.
He said he later caused a search to be made for Mohamed and confirmed that he was informed Mohamed was on Smyth Street before he went there to effect the arrest.
The questioning sought to establish what information police possessed at each stage of the operation and how the Special Branch ultimately located the Opposition Leader.
Dhurjon also questioned Narine about what he knew concerning the US extradition request before Mohamed’s arrest.
He suggested that police activity surrounding Mohamed had intensified from the night before the arrest and that government agencies had been working together in connection with the extradition proceedings.
Narine rejected the suggestion that he was aware of an extradition request on the night before Mohamed’s arrest.
Surveillance began before extradition request
The defence also returned to Narine’s earlier testimony that Special Branch surveillance of Mohamed had begun in early 2024—well before the United States formally sought his extradition.
Narine has previously denied that anyone, including President Irfaan Ali, instructed him to surveil Mohamed.
That evidence has become an important area of scrutiny for the defence, which has sought to establish why Mohamed was being monitored before the extradition proceedings existed and who authorised the surveillance.
Dhurjon questioned Narine about his contact with President Ali at police functions and a mosque, as well as issues surrounding Mohamed’s reported difficulties renewing mining rights covering more than 80,000 acres and licences for his vessels.
Narine has rejected suggestions that political instructions influenced his conduct.
The Magistrate previously ruled that questions concerning Narine’s professional promotions and career progression were not relevant to the extradition proceedings.
Police deployment questioned
Dhurjon also sought to question Narine about the circumstances of Mohamed’s arrest, including the deployment of multiple police vehicles and heavily armed officers.
Prosecutors objected to that line of questioning.
Latchman ruled that she did not see its relevance to the extradition proceedings and did not allow the questioning to continue.
The defence also asked whether Special Branch officers had previously arrested individuals in connection with extradition proceedings in Guyana.
Narine said he could neither agree nor disagree when asked whether he was aware of former Special Branch officers carrying out such arrests.
Earlier allegations remain under scrutiny
Narine’s evidence has already included serious allegations concerning Mohamed.
In earlier testimony, the Special Branch head described Mohamed as a threat to national security and said information in his possession linked the Opposition Leader to alleged murders, torture, execution-style killings, beatings of employees and bribery.
He also testified that he had played a role in investigations involving alleged murder and torture.
Those allegations remain unproven claims presented as intelligence information in the extradition proceedings. Mohamed has not been convicted of those offences, and his defence has challenged the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the police investigation.
Narine has also denied receiving political instructions regarding the surveillance or arrest of Mohamed.
Separately, earlier in the proceedings, Narine acknowledged that three notebooks containing his working notes had been shredded and burned in January 2026. However, that issue was not raised during Monday’s cross-examination and is part of the broader background against which his evidence is being examined.
The central questions now facing the court remain how and why Mohamed was surveilled before the extradition request, what information led police to Smyth Street on the day of his arrest, and whether the police operation was conducted independently of political considerations.
Dhurjon is expected to continue his cross-examination when the matter resumes at 9 a.m. Tuesday.
